Aside from the obvious typo there (80 should be 85), yes. As far as I know, the attack table still functions exactly the way it did, including the boss reductions on dodge, parry, block, and miss. I haven't seen any empirical evidence to the contrary yet.

While the Defense and Weapon Skill stats have been removed from the game as far as the players are concerned, they probably still exist in the game code in some form. In all likelihood, they just took them out as independent stats and tied them directly to level (i.e. weapon_skill=5*level). Since they were redundant to the player at that point, they got axed from the UI.

However, in the end, whether the weapon skill system still exists or not is irrelevant now that it's tied to level, and probably unnecessary for a beginner's guide like this one. I've taken out any mention of weapon or defense skill in the main section of the article for now. If we find that in later tiers of content they tweak bosses in a way that indicates the weapon skill system is still hiding behind the curtain, I'll just update the guide accordingly.

GetDodgeChance() and GetParryChance() already take into account diminishing returns, as do the percentages listed on your character sheet. Your macro would be applying a second round of Diminishing returns to them.

theckhd wrote:GetDodgeChance() and GetParryChance() already take into account diminishing returns, as do the percentages listed on your character sheet. Your macro would be applying a second round of Diminishing returns to them.

Really? Right under on the tooltip on both it says "(Before diminishing returns)" after the number it gives.. Urg so misleading!

theckhd wrote:GetDodgeChance() and GetParryChance() already take into account diminishing returns, as do the percentages listed on your character sheet. Your macro would be applying a second round of Diminishing returns to them.

Really? Right under on the tooltip on both it says "(Before diminishing returns)" after the number it gives.. Urg so misleading!

The tooltip shows it before, but the sheet shows your actual values (vs equal level mob). Though think that's what you just realised.

theckhd wrote:GetDodgeChance() and GetParryChance() already take into account diminishing returns, as do the percentages listed on your character sheet. Your macro would be applying a second round of Diminishing returns to them.

Really? Right under on the tooltip on both it says "(Before diminishing returns)" after the number it gives.. Urg so misleading!

The tooltip shows it before, but the sheet shows your actual values (vs equal level mob). Though think that's what you just realised.

The sheet and tooltip show the same chance, what I didn't realize was the rating number was separate from those numbers concerning the (before dr) note.

theckhd wrote:While the Defense and Weapon Skill stats have been removed from the game as far as the players are concerned, they probably still exist in the game code in some form. In all likelihood, they just took them out as independent stats and tied them directly to level (i.e. weapon_skill=5*level). Since they were redundant to the player at that point, they got axed from the UI.

This is correct. At both of the previous Blizzcons ('09 and '10), Blizzard specifically stated that the stats were not "removed", they just found them too confusing for the community as a whole to have to deal with, so they took them out of our UIs.

I have a question about Expertise. You posted:

theckhd wrote:...and 56 expertise skill (1682 rating) to remove parries from the table. Expertise is only half as effective after 26 rating, so despite being our best threat stat below the "soft-cap" of 26 expertise skill, it's not efficient to try and increase threat by pursuing extra expertise past 26 skill.

If it appears that threat were a problem (either for me, personally, or as a whole)... would it be worthwhile to reforge for expertise (to the 56 limit)?

I took some time off of tanking (stopped 1/2 way through ICC), and now that I'm back... I want to make sure that I understand exactly how I should be building my gear from the start. Basically, should I just reforge 100% mastery (after getting hit-cap/ exp-softcap)?

If threat became an issue, then hit and expertise would be your reforging goals. You'd want to reforge expertise first (up to 26), then hit (up to 8% melee hit), and then expertise again until 56. Strength and Stamina are both more efficient threat stats than expertise above 26, but we can't reforge into either of those.

If by some freak accident you managed to reforge to 8% hit and 56 expertise, the next best reforgable stat would be crit (I don't think you can reforge to AP).

I read through and have a question for Player attack specials against mobs that can block. I am not certain where the comes in but you can pull off blocked crits, which are greatly noticeable now that NPCs block for 30% of the damage. Not sure if it needs to be added or not.

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.

When trying to gear towards the 102.4% CTC what numbers do you need to adjust when looking at your char sheet? I see that MISS isn't shown at all - so there's 5% more CTC (4.4% against a level 88), right? Compared to the numbers shown on the char sheet, I also need to subtract 0.6% from Dodge, Parry and Block (for level 88 mobs), right? Is there anything else I'm missing?

I know there's some addons that can calculate this for you - I just want to be sure I understand where the basic numbers come from first.

From your character sheet, you can simply add up your dodge, parry, and block percentages and add 5% miss. Your target is 102.4% for a level 88 boss.

If you'd rather think in terms of reaching 100% CTC, then you'd have to subtract off 0.6% from all four of those values. In practice, I find it far easier to just aim for 102.4% instead of doing the subtractions. There's also an addon called "Visual Combat Table" which will do the math for you if you mouse over a level 88 boss.

I wonder if changing the titles of our guides would make themmore helpful to newbies.

Right now our top post is Basic Training 101. The '101' isoften understood to be the most basic information, the first-termfreshman class; people will be inclined to hit that first, and itdrops them into a slightly mathematical discourse about theattack table.

Below that is what I consider our real Tanking 101 thread: the"spec protection, at first just wear mail with stamina and strengthand get yourself a shield" stuff.

On the con side, the FAQ is somewhat famous under its current nameand changing it could be construed as shifting credit away from theoriginal author. That would be bad.

Would the usability of the guides be improved by changing their orderand renaming them to Tanking 101 (How to Get Started) and Tanking 102(Introduction to Theory and Gearing), and would the benefits outweighthe above concern and all the other drawbacks I haven't thought of(including possibly search engine optimization)?

The original intent was to have several BT101 articles, all covering different aspects of tank theorycrafting at a beginner level. However, there really isn't a need for them, nor do I have a lot of time to write them. The information in the Basic FAQ pretty much covers everything you'd want to have in a beginner's guide, and I don't think it makes sense to split each post up into its own topic.

Perhaps the simplest solution is to just drop the BT101 name entirely. I could change the name of this thread to "Theorycrafting 101: The Attack Table" or "Beginner Theorycrafting: The Attack Table." That would make it a little clearer that this thread isn't your first stop on the road to tanking.

I'm not opposed to changing the name of the 4.2 FAQ, but "Basic Training 101: 4.2 Protection Paladin FAQ" is a bit long-winded. If we did that, the Attack Table article could be bumped up to BT102. I'm fine with either choice, really.

Name recognition and google rank are something I hadn't thought of, though I'm not sure how important it is. We're actually pretty low in the results for "protection paladin," but anything with "tankadin" tends to put us at the top. Keeping "Protection Paladin" in the thread title is probably wise either way. Something funny is going on with the hyphen as well, google seems to prioritize the first few words. Maybe "4.2 Protection Paladin FAQ - Tankadin Basics" would be better, since it puts "protection paladin" in the front, and we'll already be getting high rankings for "tankadin" already.

Glancing is only for auto-attacks. Bosses do have a chance to block melee attacks now (ever since 4.0, I think), but I'm not sure I ever updated the article to account for that. It works like glancing though, and you can't remove it from the table.

What exactly are you asking though? The formulas are pretty straightforward:

I missed distributing the level difference into the second term. So for a level+3 boss or mob, it would be 5+0.5*3+0.5*3*1 = 5+1.5+1.5 = 8.

It doesn't matter whether a mob is normal, elite, or boss type - all that matters is the level difference. A level+3 mob will still give you an 8% miss chance, even if they're not a boss (i.e. a level 80 character attacking a level 83 mob in Deepholm or Uldum). Similarly for crit suppression and glances.

If you can read matlab code, everything is in the cataclysm branch of the matlabadin project. We're currently working on the MoP mechanics, which are slightly different from what's on live. Of course, you'll have to figure out where to look to find the information you want, which is non-trivial.

Once MoP goes live I'm sure I'll be revising this article to reflect the new mechanics; when I do, I'll include the formulas explicitly.

theckhd wrote:Glancing is only for auto-attacks. Bosses do have a chance to block melee attacks now (ever since 4.0, I think), but I'm not sure I ever updated the article to account for that. It works like glancing though, and you can't remove it from the table.

The emphasized parts are inaccurate.

Common to both 4.x and 5.x :1. All NPCs have a chance to block physical attacks (it can reach 0%, but it's there).2. The damage reduction of blocked hits is level-independent, at 30%. The damage reduction of glancing blows is level-dependent, in contrast.3. Autoattacks that are glancing blows cannot be blocked (nota bene : that's true even in 5.x). The same should be true for crushing blows in 5.x.4. Ranged attacks can also be blocked. The same should be true in 5.x too.5. Blocks cannot be removed from two-roll tables (i.e. "yellow" attacks).

4.x :1. Blocks can be removed from one-roll tables (i.e. autoattacks), because "miss" events and glancing bows are rolled for first.2. The chance to block an attack is level-independent.

5.x :1. Blocks cannot be removed from autoattacks (i.e. the former one-roll tables).2. The chance to block a physical attack seems to be level-dependent. Additional testing required.3. Autoattacks are rolled for two times (not one, as in 4.x) : one for miss/GB/crit/CB/hit (in this order), and hits/crits roll once again for blocks. 4. "Yellow" attacks are rolled for three times (not two, as in 4.x) : one for hit/miss, one for critical strikes, one for blocks.

Yet, in the Wowhead gear database I find Stoneform Shoulders with a Dodge Rating of 13 that offers a 1.53% increase at level 40 and a Archaic Defender with a Dodge Rating of 13 that offers a 2.46% increase at level 31.

theckhd wrote:Glancing is only for auto-attacks. Bosses do have a chance to block melee attacks now (ever since 4.0, I think), but I'm not sure I ever updated the article to account for that. It works like glancing though, and you can't remove it from the table.

The emphasized parts are inaccurate.

To be fair, I was being brief, not rigorous. We don't have any ranged attacks in our arsenal, everything is coded as a spell or a melee attack with the dodge/parry flag disabled, so the only things of relevance are auto-attacks and melee abilities. And there's no stat you can stack to remove blocks from the table. Certainly it can be pushed off by misses/glancing, but I haven't heard of anyone stacking melee miss.